The District Registrar lacks authority to nullify registered documents under the Registration Act, with such powers vested only in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the Writ order dated 01.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.11617 of 2016.

2. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The issue raised in the present intra-Court appeal is, whether the District Registrar under the Registration Act is empowered to cancel the sale deeds by invoking powers conferred under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act.

3. It is not in dispute that a complaint came to be instituted by the respondents to nullify three sale deeds registered in sale deed Nos.592/2009 dated 20.02.2009, 895/2009 dated 12.03.2009 and 351/2011 dated 25.01.2011.

4. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Government of Puducherry entertained the complaint under Section 68(2) read with Section 75(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and conducted an enquiry and nullified three sale deeds, which came to be challenged by way of Writ proceedings by the appellants before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the power assumed by the District Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Act is based on erroneous interpretation of scope of the provision and the word “fraud” under Section 68(2) of the Act will have a restricted meaning so as to correct an error, if any, made during registration of a document. It is contended that even before preferring a complaint before the District Registrar, a civil suit was instituted between the parties in O.S.No.897 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry. The prayer sought for in the plaint is to declare the above three sale deeds as null and void and for permanent injunction. The appellants have filed a counter claim in the suit and the suit and counter claim are pending as of now.

6. When the suit for declaration to declare the sale deeds as null and void is pending before the competent civil Court of law, the District Registrar entertained the complaint under Section 68(2) of the Act and declared that the sale deeds are null and void and thereby making the suit infrucutous. The power which is otherwise not contemplated under the Act has been exercised and thus the present Writ Petition is to be considered.

7. Mr.S.Patrick, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 2, 6 to 17 made a submission that it was a transaction between husband and wife and a fraud came to be committed. Therefore, the District Registrar exercised his power under section 68(2) of the Act, as well as the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration. That apart, the High Court is empowered to declare a document as null and void in exercise of powers of judicial review. Therefore, the writ Court was right in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. The writ Court found that the transaction was a fraudulent transaction and sale deeds registered were also identified as fraud. Thus, there is no infirmity in the Writ order and the appeal is to be rejected.

8. The disputed facts relating to the sale transactions or passing of consideration need not be adjudicated in the present Writ Appeal, since, the parties have chosen to file a civil suit in O.S.No.897 of 2013 and a counter claim, which are pending. The question to be considered in the present appeal is whether the order of the District Registrar nullifying the sale deed by invoking power under Sec